mUltimate Chopin

Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Text Compare Notes Sources Description

Issues : Inaccuracies in FE

b. 102

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Slur from 3rd beat in A (→GE)

Slur from 2nd beat in FE (→EE)
..

An earlier beginning of the slur in FE (→EE) is certainly a mistake, similarly as in the case of the slur of GE1 (→FE→EE) in bars 98-99.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE

b. 114-116

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Long accents in A (→GE→FE)

Short accents in EE
..

The long accents in bars 114 and 116, perfectly reproduced in GE, are not equally legible in FE, although the difference with respect to the short accents in bar 118 is clear. In EE they were considered common, short accents.

category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources

issues: Long accents , Inaccuracies in FE , EE inaccuracies

b. 195

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

Tie to a1 in A & GE2

Slur under 3rd beat in GE1

Slur to a1 in bar 196 in FE (→EE)
..

The version of GE stems from a misunderstanding of the notation of A – the tie of a1 in bars 195-196 was reproduced as a slur of the top voice in bar 195. The fact that the slur is led to the minim in bar 196 in FE (→EE) is owed to the proofreading, possibly a Chopin one, whose aim was most probably to restore the version of A, yet it was implemented inaccurately. A possibility that Chopin resigned from sustaining a1, and that he wanted to combine both parts of this transitional phrase by extending the slur (cf. the adjacent note), seems to be much less likely. Therefore, we adopt the version of A to the main text.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , Authentic corrections of FE

b. 262-264

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

4 accents in A & GE2

3 accents in GE1

3 accents in FE

3 accents in EE
..

In bars 252 and 264, A features clear accents on the second and penultimate quavers; such an accentuation scheme is repeated twice more in analogous bars. Therefore, omission of the 1st accent in bar 264 in GE1 (→FE→EE) must be a mistake. The accents in FE are placed inaccurately, hence in EE they were put a quaver earlier, on the 1st and 7th notes of the bar, which is a mistake.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE , EE inaccuracies

b. 270-272

composition: Op. 21, Concerto in F minor, Mvt III

4 accents in A & GE2

3 accents in GE1

3 accents in FE

4 accents in EE
..

The omission of the 2nd accent in bar 272 in GE1 (→FE) must be an oversight. The accents in FE are placed inaccurately – the second one in bar 270 can be interpreted to apply to the 7th quaver, whereas the sign in bar 272 was placed under the 3rd note in the bar. In EE the 2nd accent in bar 272 was added, yet it was placed under the 1st note of the triplet, analogously to the one in bar 270. Both remaining accents were arbitrarily changed to vertical ones.

category imprint: Differences between sources

issues: EE revisions , Inaccuracies in FE , Errors in GE